Extinction Central

[Vajradhara]

Namaste muslimwoman,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi V

But the Druids did not have industrialisation to deal with. Many ancient peoples respected the land and even worshipped nature but since the industrial revolution we have been damaging our environment on an unprecedented scale.

i'm fairly sure that industry, per se, existed during the time of the druids.. perhaps not in all areas where they were.. but smelting copper, bronze and tin were skills well known in ancient days.

history is repleat with descriptions of, at the time, civilized folks letter raw sewage run through the streets... horse, donkey and camel manure everywhere...

as i mentioned before... volcanoes and wildfires contribute more on a yearly basis than any human activity... it is human hubris, in my view, which causes us to believe that our industry is anything more than a smoldering volcano.

I agree completely, the human race could be wiped out tomorrow but I do not feel that we should abuse the earth based on this possibility. If we are wiped out the world will recover but how much more difficult for the world to recover if it takes us another million years to disappear (with all the damage we could do between now and then).

nor was i advocating that we misuse the resources of this planet. it doesn't seem to be very difficult for the world to recover from any of the mass extintion events which it's gone through. life has, in every case, survived and continued on. not always human life, of course.

Why has China become a concern? Because they are becoming so much more industrialised, as are India.

partly. they are a concern throughout the global community due to the lack of standards which many of their powerplants operate under and the amount of pollution they are producing which is effecting others.

Their outputs are now outstripping other more 'advanced' nations. However, I do not feel we can say 'we are no longer the problem because you are a bigger problem'. As a global community we have to look at the big picture. Add Asia's pollution to ours and the problem becomes a real concern but we too have to deal with our part of that global problem.

indeed. have you seen what is being done in the Western Hemisphere to address the issue?

I am not saying what they are doing is right but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

no. i do not understand the mindset that a nation must be morally or ethically perfect before it could say that the actions of another are not morally or ethically perfect. not the right terms but i'm struggling a bit...

that's like saying because i, in my younger days, stole some candy from a store I cannot tell my child not to steal candy from a store. the fact that my actions were wrong does not, in any way, make anothers actions any more correct nor obviate my responsiblity to say something, in my view at any rate.

Haven't Canada and the US been sending pollution across China for some years?

no. the jet stream, at this point in earths history, flows from Asia to North America.. did you know that during world war 2, the Japanese figured out where the jet stream was and where it went... and, to take advanatge of that, they created unmanned ballons that were loaded with bombs set for timers. it took 36 hours on the jet stream to reach North America wherein the bombs dropped from the ballons. i don't recall them actually killing anyone directly, though a few folks did die from unexploded ordinance.

Just look at the Chernobyl disaster, that had effects right across Europe, in Scotland trees were dying and lakes were being polluted. We do not have walls around our man made borders, we all affect each other.

you'll note, of course, that Cernobyl was not in North America. the disaster there is, still, ongoing. i don't know if you've seen any of the recent documentaries about it.. but the whole place is near ready to explode again since they weren't actually able to shut down the reactions.. they just poured concrete over the whole freakin' mess.

But surely that would be to suggest that unless I have tasted an orange I shouldn't have an opinion on oranges or the methods used for growing them?

what possible view could you have towards oranges? you've never tasted one, seen one, touched one or smelled one. you read about it in a book but lack any actual experience of one thus there is no manner by which you could have formed your own views about an orange, they could only be views of others that have tasted oranges.

horticulture is, however, something that can be learned, in an academic manner, through books so you could have a valid view regarding the growing of said fruit.

Oh and I love flowers. I would have loved to have been a Buddhist but I just can't kick this G-d habit.

Salaam
Sally

you don't need to be a Buddhist to hang out with us we like all types.. even you thiests

yes... habit... interesting choice of words there...

metta,

~v

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm fairly sure that industry, per se, existed during the time of the druids.. perhaps not in all areas where they were.. but smelting copper, bronze and tin were skills well known in ancient days.

Salaam V

I hardly think we can compare the druids smelting copper over an open fire, with chemical processing plants, cement factories or power stations.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

as i mentioned before... volcanoes and wildfires contribute more on a yearly basis than any human activity... it is human hubris, in my view, which causes us to believe that our industry is anything more than a smoldering volcano.

Volcanoes do contribute more CO2 than human activity but the natural process of recycling that CO2 is through photosynthesis, which is why I suggest human activity is adding to the problem by destroying trees at a rate of 3400 acres per HOUR.

Human emissions cannot be discounted as a factor, it is something we can change with the desire to do so. My point about the US and it's energy consumption is that with just 5% of the worlds population its emmisions account for almost 25% of the human CO2 emissions. I am sorry but people in other countries do look at these figures and scratch their heads.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

indeed. have you seen what is being done in the Western Hemisphere to address the issue?

I imagine you are not refering to the trading of emissions permits with underdevloped countries so that we can carry on regardless!! Yes we are trying to take steps to reduce emissions but are we trying hard enough, while trying to protect our economies?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

no. i do not understand the mindset that a nation must be morally or ethically perfect before it could say that the actions of another are not morally or ethically perfect. not the right terms but i'm struggling a bit...

I am not suggesting anyone has to be perfect, just that we all have to work together to deal with this problem. For a country to produce 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions (from human activities), with just 5% of the world population and then say other countries have to do better is simple hypocracy in my book.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

that's like saying because i, in my younger days, stole some candy from a store I cannot tell my child not to steal candy from a store. the fact that my actions were wrong does not, in any way, make anothers actions any more correct nor obviate my responsiblity to say something, in my view at any rate.

But if you were still stealing candy today, would it be right for you to tell your child not to do it? I would suggest that if you stop stealing and then tell your child not to, you are likely to get a better result.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

no. the jet stream, at this point in earths history, flows from Asia to North America..

So may I ask where the US's emissions go to?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

but the whole place is near ready to explode again since they weren't actually able to shut down the reactions.. they just poured concrete over the whole freakin' mess.

Well here I am in my own field and can report that the same problem exists within the nuclear industry all over the world. The nuclear industry is a mere 50 years old and the science is largely guesswork. A few years ago I attended a conference at the Sellafield nuclear plant in England. The conference was to discuss the issue of nuclear waste held in concrete silo's. The concrete is beginning to become unstable, due to age and we had to propose ways of moving the waste into newly built silo's. After a full week of batting back and forth numerous sceanrio's I can report that the conclusion was "we don't even know what is going on inside the silo's, so how the hell can we decide the safest way to move the sludge?". Virtually every proposed solution had possible catastrophic results. Needless to say science is still working on the problem and the silo's are not getting any younger!!! Bet that makes you feel better about the nuclear industy.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what possible view could you have towards oranges?

But I can have views about the orange industry. I can object to the use of slave labour to pick the oranges, object to the chemicals used to keep away pests, etc.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

yes... habit... interesting choice of words there...

Not exactly a freudian slip. I don't want to stop believing in G-d, I wuv Him sooooo much.

Salaam
Sally

[Vajradhara]

Namaste muslimwoman,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Salaam V

I hardly think we can compare the druids smelting copper over an open fire, with chemical processing plants, cement factories or power stations.

i'm actually addressing your claim that ancient peoples respected the enviornment more and treated it better. they didn't, by and large. they dumped their trash, their sewage and everything else into rivers, lakes, ponds and so forth. that their impact was less was simply due to their numbers not an innate sense of doing things differently.

Volcanoes do contribute more CO2 than human activity but the natural process of recycling that CO2 is through photosynthesis, which is why I suggest human activity is adding to the problem by destroying trees at a rate of 3400 acres per HOUR.

did you know that in North America, there are now more trees here than before Columbus arrived? tree farms, don't ya know.

Human emissions cannot be discounted as a factor, it is something we can change with the desire to do so.

of course not but to presume that we are the sole cause is hubris in the highest form, imo.

My point about the US and it's energy consumption is that with just 5% of the worlds population its emmisions account for almost 25% of the human CO2 emissions. I am sorry but people in other countries do look at these figures and scratch their heads.

that's an interesting figure.

what does your source indicate for China?

I imagine you are not refering to the trading of emissions permits with underdevloped countries so that we can carry on regardless!! Yes we are trying to take steps to reduce emissions but are we trying hard enough, while trying to protect our economies?

actually i'm referring to the recent announcement in Europe of wind mills that scrub carbon from the air and things of this nature. (looking for the news article but i cant' find it at the moment).

buying "carbon" shares to proclaim oneself "carbon neutral" seems to be somewhat disengenious, imo.

I am not suggesting anyone has to be perfect, just that we all have to work together to deal with this problem. For a country to produce 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions (from human activities), with just 5% of the world population and then say other countries have to do better is simple hypocracy in my book.

does that make the message any less valid?

But if you were still stealing candy today, would it be right for you to tell your child not to do it? I would suggest that if you stop stealing and then tell your child not to, you are likely to get a better result.

again, does it make the point any less valid?

irrespective of my actions, stealing is not a morally correct path, which i'm sure you'd agree with.

So may I ask where the US's emissions go to?

mostly to Greenland and northern Europe.

Well here I am in my own field and can report that the same problem exists within the nuclear industry all over the world. The nuclear industry is a mere 50 years old and the science is largely guesswork. A few years ago I attended a conference at the Sellafield nuclear plant in England. The conference was to discuss the issue of nuclear waste held in concrete silo's. The concrete is beginning to become unstable, due to age and we had to propose ways of moving the waste into newly built silo's. After a full week of batting back and forth numerous sceanrio's I can report that the conclusion was "we don't even know what is going on inside the silo's, so how the hell can we decide the safest way to move the sludge?". Virtually every proposed solution had possible catastrophic results. Needless to say science is still working on the problem and the silo's are not getting any younger!!! Bet that makes you feel better about the nuclear industy.

i have no particular issue with nuclear power nor anything of that nature and am fairly aware of the issues that we are facing at this point in time though, of course, only as informed as a layperson with an interest is

But I can have views about the orange industry. I can object to the use of slave labour to pick the oranges, object to the chemicals used to keep away pests, etc.

rather besides the point, it's the orange that we're talking about and how only a direct experience of it would produce any valid knowledge of how it would taste.

Not exactly a freudian slip. I don't want to stop believing in G-d, I wuv Him sooooo much.

Salaam
Sally

suffice it to say that western psychology does not offer much to me in this regard.

indeed.

metta,

~v

[Tao_Equus]

Vaj,

Throughout the world there are numerous examples of ancient civilisations that very much took a long term stewardship approach to their local environments. Where pollution did take place they at least had the excuse of ignorance, not having the scientific knowledge we employ today. Thus I say it is a grossly misleading parallal you try to draw in that regard. In case after case after case we see profit being put before safety and sense, local communities being poisened and their offspring mutilated by genetic mutations and their traditional land being rendered toxic.

With regard to Co2 emissions comparing the USA and China we do indeed see China overtaking the US in gross tonnage but per capita the average US citizen still uses over 5x as much as the average Chinese.

As for volcanic releases they are dwarfed by mankinds contribution:

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from aerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. Gerlach T.M. "Natural sources of Greenhouse gases"

Climate change is a reality and that we as a species have and are causing a dramatic shift is irrefutable. Just what the long term effects will be are unknown but I feel it is imperrative we do get a handle on the emission of warming gases. I do not think it threatens us as a species but I most surely do think it will cause massive loss of life and suffering. We have a duty to our children to face the facts.

Tao

[flowperson]

Hi...Sorry to sidetrack this excellent discussion, but I thought a little good news might be refreshing. Could be propaganda though.

flow....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/wo...a/30china.html

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Tao,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Vaj,

Throughout the world there are numerous examples of ancient civilisations that very much took a long term stewardship approach to their local environments.

nor did i say otherwise. my point is fairly narrow in this regard. it is a fallacy to think that ancient peoples were treating the enviornment any differently than modern peoples with regards to disposal of waste products.

Where pollution did take place they at least had the excuse of ignorance, not having the scientific knowledge we employ today. Thus I say it is a grossly misleading parallal you try to draw in that regard.

perhaps you missed my point.

With regard to Co2 emissions comparing the USA and China we do indeed see China overtaking the US in gross tonnage but per capita the average US citizen still uses over 5x as much as the average Chinese.

and that somehow gives the Chinese industrial complex a pass?

As for volcanic releases they are dwarfed by mankinds contribution:

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from aerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. Gerlach T.M. "Natural sources of Greenhouse gases"

you will note that i included wildfires in my statement previously. more to the point, perhaps, is that climate change is not a product soley of CO2 emissions.

Climate change is a reality and that we as a species have and are causing a dramatic shift is irrefutable.

you make it seem as if the climate were stable or somehow not in a continual state of change. that is demonstrably not the case. the climate warms and cools, ice ages come and go.. the climate is always changing. that humans have an effect on this process is not in dispute. the placing of humans as the reason or cause behind climate change is.

metta,

~v

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi...Sorry to sidetrack this excellent discussion, but I thought a little good news might be refreshing. Could be propaganda though.

flow....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/wo...a/30china.html

I saw the report on the news but never thought to consider it might just be propoganda. Given China's desperation to paint itself environmentaly sound in the run up to the olympics it may well be tho.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Vaj

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

nor did i say otherwise. my point is fairly narrow in this regard. it is a fallacy to think that ancient peoples were treating the enviornment any differently than modern peoples with regards to disposal of waste products.

Thats simply not true if only for the simple reason that modern waste products bear no comparison to ancient ones which were invariably taken from the local enviroment and rotted back into it quickly. Our landfills are choking with items that will remain there causing toxic blight for millenia to come. The artificial chemicals and drugs our water sources now contain are permanent and do not degrade. Artificial estrogen for example is causing sterility not just in men but across the animal kingdoms. Some polymers and isomers have half lives that equal the most dangerous radioactive substances and are poisoning us every day with unforseen consequences. These ancient people did not need to be careful with their waste, we know we do. Thats the difference.

and that somehow gives the Chinese industrial complex a pass?

No but neither does it give the moral authority to drive the school run in a V8 4x4 kiddy killer in minesota.

you will note that i included wildfires in my statement previously. more to the point, perhaps, is that climate change is not a product soley of CO2 emissions.

Indeed it is not but as a result of man's CO2 emissions causing a few degrees warming at extreme lattitudes and in the deep oceans we now have the massive release of methane gas once locked safely away by the cold. Climate models that include the release of these methane reserves give us "Day After Tomorrow" type scenarious in our lifetimes.

you make it seem as if the climate were stable or somehow not in a continual state of change. that is demonstrably not the case. the climate warms and cools, ice ages come and go.. the climate is always changing. that humans have an effect on this process is not in dispute. the placing of humans as the reason or cause behind climate change is.

Of course I am aware of the climatic fluctuations that are evidenced from the geologic record and other sources. During the Jurrasic period you could grow date palms at lattitudes as far north as Sweden, at other times ice sheets have extended to Northern Spain. But all the evidence points to there never having been such a massive swing in mean global temperature as we see now without massive species extinction. And indeed some models predict the swing that is underway will far surpass any swing evident in the geological record with consequences we simply cannot predict. Human activity is clearly behind the current changes and I personaly find it abhorrant that so many are willing to try and make excuses and pass off truly dealing with it to our children, for whom it might well be too late to do anything.

Tao

[bob x]

I was recently reading Jared Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee" (from a few years back; more recently he wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel") in which he talks about the massive extinction in North America, worse than what has happened since the white man came, which happened right after the Natives came: numerous species of elephants, ground sloths, giant armadillos, saber-tooth cats and other dramatic megafauna, along with a lot of less spectacular but still unique life-forms. He notes that a lot of researchers have been reluctant to believe that the Natives killed them all, but argues quite persuasively that yes, it is so. Native Americans are famous for respecting the Earth and practicing only sustainable resource-usage, but, apparently they learned that the hard way. Why did they manage to accomplish so much more destruction than people in most places? They had real "cutting-edge" Stone Age technology! The "Clovis point" which they invented, a great improvement over the Siberian precursors, was deadly against big game which other hunters of the time could not touch (Clovis points have been found imbedded in mammoth bones).

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Tao,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Vaj Thats simply not true if only for the simple reason that modern waste products bear no comparison to ancient ones which were invariably taken from the local enviroment and rotted back into it quickly.

i think i'm not explaining it well.

that the materials are different is, of course, of no question and rightly so since that is not the contention. the contention is that ancient peoples treated the enviornment better with isolated and noted exceptions, it simply isn't so.

These ancient people did not need to be careful with their waste, we know we do. Thats the difference.

i think that you undersestimate the dramatic effect that salt has upon the ability of soil to sustain agriculture, the slash and burn farming techniques that have been used by humans since we first domesticated crops in the Fertile Cresent and the deleterious effects that ancient cities had upon their enviornments.

No but neither does it give the moral authority to drive the school run in a V8 4x4 kiddy killer in minesota.

since nobody in this discussion has claimed that, i'm rather curious as to your mentioning it.

Human activity is clearly behind the current changes and I personaly find it abhorrant that so many are willing to try and make excuses and pass off truly dealing with it to our children, for whom it might well be too late to do anything.

Tao

no science can support your contention that humans are the sole cause of the warming of the planet. even in the articles you cite it states quite clearly that natural process play a role in this.

not to be flip however if humans become extinct it does not mean that life ends on this world system. given the natural history of this planet, it is quite likely that the human species will become extinct regardless of anything that we may or may not do to the environment.

lest you misunderstand, that i feel there are natual causes to global warming and, that the globe undergoes perodic shifts from warm ages to ice ages, does not mean that i take our current existence or environment for granted nor is it, as you seem to imply, an excuse to behave in any manner i choose. further, it does not mean that i fail to understand the human contribution to the current state.

metta,

~v

[flowperson]

Namaste Vaj...

The discussion on this thread has evolved into a debate regarding climatic conditions which contribute to species alteration and decline upon the Earth. The two issues are obviously related in important ways, but my original aim was to only address here the precipitous declines of the life forms that we co-exist with on a daily basis, and not necessarily the indirect causes. That discussion has been proceeding on the "Global Warming" thread (please see my post #42).
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ch-7611-3.html


My contention there is that global weather systems are entering a period of serious chaotic imbalance, and that this onset is directly attributable to human interventions. For instance, we simply do not know what long-term effects may proceed from the U.S. Government's substantial thermal interventions through the activities of the HAARP project in Alaska. And of course all of the data is "secret" so plausible predictive discussions may not take place. That's just one major factor in the overall picture IMHO.

In that siprit of discovery, here' the last item posted on the Global Warming thread.

Asteroids and Near-Earth Objects

All the best...flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm actually addressing your claim that ancient peoples respected the enviornment more and treated it better. they didn't, by and large. they dumped their trash, their sewage and everything else into rivers, lakes, ponds and so forth. that their impact was less was simply due to their numbers not an innate sense of doing things differently.

Salaam V

Thank you for your responses.

I would suggest that all people, prior to the industrial revolution, treated the world with more respect. Perhaps this was not a concious effort but they were incapable of harming the environment in the way we now do.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

did you know that in North America, there are now more trees here than before Columbus arrived? tree farms, don't ya know.

That is an admirable statistic. How does it compare to the statistics for trees being felled by American organisations outside the US?

Tree 'farms'. The word farm would suggest that the trees are grown for felling? So how long would they be allowed to grow before they are felled? Of course any CO2 that the tree absorbed during it's life would be released upon felling and processing. So how do tree farms help the problem in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

of course not but to presume that we are the sole cause is hubris in the highest form, imo.

I have never suggested we are the sole source, just a contributing factor. However, our contribution can be reduced if we choose.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

that's an interesting figure.

what does your source indicate for China?

Sorry I should have given a source. They are IPPC (gave US as almost 25%), WBCSD & WRI Protocol Figures are:

USA 21.2%
China is given as 15.2%
UK 2%
Egypt 0.5%

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually i'm referring to the recent announcement in Europe of wind mills that scrub carbon from the air and things of this nature. (looking for the news article but i cant' find it at the moment).

There is much discussion on the viability of wind farms. This is from a discussion about nuclear energy but is a sad statistic about wind farms:

Germany has devastated its countryside with a surfeit of wind farms yet they produce only 16 per cent of their rated electricity output, and Germany now emits more CO2 than it did before they were installed.

http://www.warmwell.com/06mar12zaclovelock.html

That said, of course we have to keep trying to find cleaner energy sources.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

buying "carbon" shares to proclaim oneself "carbon neutral" seems to be somewhat disengenious, imo.

Well if you look up our 2 countries (UK & USA) you will see that much of the drop in emissions over the last decade has not been through direct action but through trading of emissions points with underdeveloped countries.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

does that make the message any less valid?

Not less valid but hypocritical imo.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

again, does it make the point any less valid?

Not less valid but hypocritical imo. Of course stealing is a morally incorrect path, so to steal and tell others not to is valid but hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

mostly to Greenland and northern Europe.

Gee, how can we possibly thank you?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

rather besides the point, it's the orange that we're talking about and how only a direct experience of it would produce any valid knowledge of how it would taste.

So the suggestion is that I should have no opinion or view about environmental emissions because I am not an expert in the field. So should I also stop speaking about G-d, as clearly I have never met Him either?

Salaam
Sally

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi...Sorry to sidetrack this excellent discussion, but I thought a little good news might be refreshing. Could be propaganda though.

The WWF have reported the same video, everyone cross their fingers it is true.

WWF - Rare dolphin spotted in the Yangtze River

Salaam
MW

[Vajradhara]

Namaste muslimwoman,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I would suggest that all people, prior to the industrial revolution, treated the world with more respect. Perhaps this was not a concious effort but they were incapable of harming the environment in the way we now do.

the history of mankind seems to belie this view. humans, well before the industrial age, engaged in the mass killings of other species.. especially those that could compete with them. further, the polution dumped in to rivers and other sluices to remove trash and garbage from ancient cities was not processed or cleaned. the fact that it had less impact on the earth is not due to any innate morality regarding the planet, it is simply that there were not as many humans then.

of course, we don't have to agree on this point in the least.

That is an admirable statistic. How does it compare to the statistics for trees being felled by American organisations outside the US?

i don't know.

Tree 'farms'. The word farm would suggest that the trees are grown for felling? So how long would they be allowed to grow before they are felled? Of course any CO2 that the tree absorbed during it's life would be released upon felling and processing. So how do tree farms help the problem in your opinion?

The term "tree farming" was first used in the 1940's to introduce the public to sustainable forestry terminology they could easily understand. Farming implies continual stewardship and production of goods year after year. By linking the term "farming" with trees, foresters could communicate the concept of sustainable production of forest products over time. Tree Farming implies commitment to the land and was the philosophical opposite of the "cut-out and get-out" philosophy of the early 20th century.


Tree Farms are more than pine plantations or Christmas tree farms. Tree Farms are varied in nature and contain many different habitats and stages of forest regeneration, from seedlings to mature timber. Biodiversity is a critical component of a certified Tree Farm. Tree Farmers must maintain natural forest buffers and other aspects of conservation techniques.
ATFS was established in response to concerns that America's private forests were being cut at unsustainable rates without reforestation. It all began in 1941 when the first Tree Farm was designated in Washington State. The Tree Farm's purpose was to demonstrate sound forest management practices to area landowners. California's Tree Farm program started later in 1941 and has grown to include nearly 600 Tree Farms covering 3.5 million acres of the state.

American Tree Farm System website - Welcome!

as the term "farm" implies, the trees are continually replanted and regrown.. sustainable forestry practices help our enviornment by not depleteing the overall number of trees for products like paper.

I have never suggested we are the sole source, just a contributing factor. However, our contribution can be reduced if we choose.

agreed.

There is much discussion on the viability of wind farms. This is from a discussion about nuclear energy but is a sad statistic about wind farms:

Germany has devastated its countryside with a surfeit of wind farms yet they produce only 16 per cent of their rated electricity output, and Germany now emits more CO2 than it did before they were installed.

http://www.warmwell.com/06mar12zaclovelock.html

That said, of course we have to keep trying to find cleaner energy sources.

i wish i could find the article.. i am not speaking of a normal windmill... it is a quite recent developement.. the past month or so wherein these windmills actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere....

i'll look for it some more..

Well if you look up our 2 countries (UK & USA) you will see that much of the drop in emissions over the last decade has not been through direct action but through trading of emissions points with underdeveloped countries.

i know. i was speaking on an individual level rather than a national level. nevertheless, there are several tribes of the People (Native United States Inidans) that are considering tree farming to sell carbon credits to developing nations.

Not less valid but hypocritical imo.
Not less valid but hypocritical imo. Of course stealing is a morally incorrect path, so to steal and tell others not to is valid but hypocritical.

it's as if you are missing the message to point out the faults of the messenger. the message is important to give; would you propose that if one has ever done something morally questionable that they should not tell others not to do it?

So the suggestion is that I should have no opinion or view about environmental emissions because I am not an expert in the field. So should I also stop speaking about G-d, as clearly I have never met Him either?

Salaam
Sally

if you recall the context of the conversation:

MW:Without any doubt I can show you such things from any country in the world but American policy drives so many others, so this seems a worrying trend.

Cyber-pi
Without any doubt. I am convinced that you can show me things from ANY country... especially the ones that you and I have never seen.

MW: I have this strange ability, it is called reading, I know it is bizarre isn't it. I have never been to space but I know that space junk is a problem we humans are causing. Or maybe that is all propaganda??

Vaj: do you proppose that reading about eating an orange is the same thing as actually eating one?

so the gist of the question is do you feel that substituting anothers experience allows you to communicate that experience to another?

it has nothing to do with gods or anything else.

metta,

~v

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the polution dumped in to rivers and other sluices to remove trash and garbage from ancient cities was not processed or cleaned.

Salaam V

No it wasn't but there were no polymers, heavens there wasn't even glass for the longest time. I hardly think some rotting cabbage leaves had the same effect. Leather was not tanned in chemicals, chemical plants did not spew out green goo into the oceans, clothes were dyed in natural dyes. Life has moved on and all I am suggesting is that with every advancement we (humans) have progressively caused more harm to our environment. Just look at oil, it isn't even 150 years since we first drilled for oil, how many oil spills into our oceans have there been since?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara